| mai said: I'm referring to "get the f**k out of your informational ghetto". Given how drastically different current informational background around Syria from, say, Yugoslavian confilct where informational background was monopolistically held in the same hands, Syrian situation has more than one explanation, nothing prevents you from studyning the subject except from own disinterest.
Not that you're unique here, superficial glance at the thread only proves that fighting windmills is a waste of time, still let's take a look what we've got here? - the fallacy that Assad government is bad (what is bad in the context? why it is bad? who said it's bad besides MSM? why all of sudden Assad is a problem? no answers); Previously I was questioning only your moral integrity, while that quote of yours makes me question your moral and intellectual integrity.
//Having had experience talking to people from other places on the subject, I always wondered who deep inside them sitting this fallacy about oppressing regime and simple freedom-thirsty people -- sometimes I envy them, the world is so crystal clear for them. At the same time I've seen people who were trying to defend Assad, but what they didn't understand -- as long as they accept that paradigm of horizontal slices of the society (regime above, people below) -- they lost the argument. While in real life these slices are never horizonatal, but vertical -- regime and people on both sides -- a civil war situation. Though in Syria civil war has ended long ago, current situation is better described with the word "invasion". |
1) The Assad Government has ALWAYS been bad? Nothing new about it. He's generally made a good "placeholder" for both western and eastern interests, but he's always been awful. I know you tend to take a "patriot" view where it's perfectly fine to support your government, and think it's fine for puppet governments to take over and trample on people, just so long as it's stable for other countries. I don't really agree.
The change in tone from Western governments is just more the realization that there is zero chance Assad can win, so they want to be abl to try and support the "good." Rebel groups. I doubt i will work well. (Didn't in Libya) but really, Assad can't win indefinitly, so the EU and US want to get ahead of Syria.
2) By something going wrong... that's pretty obvious. As in, when the rebels fight for government control. The Syrian rebels aren't really remotely uniform. Which is why they don't control ANY of Syria's provinces. Despite currently being in a position, they can't really lose. The rebels seem far too diverse for any one group to gain total Assad like control. So who knows what the new government will bring, espiecally when ex government officials start peeling off and supporting various rebel groups. Best case scenario forces some kind of stalemate of poltiical power that makes a fairly even government.
Worstcase scenario, your on to another shitty dictatorship, and further along to overthrowing it, then if there was further Assad stalemates.
3) You've got it backwords. Assad provides the longer term death toll... and the greater death toll. There is really zero chance of Assad winning at this point. So the choice is more or less, Assad loses or this status quo... forever. Hell, as it is, the war could drag in Israel or Turkey into tis mess. (Well, more so then Israel's bombing campaigns they're already doing.)
